Talk:Frank LaGrotta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of material relating to arraignment

Wikipedia is not News. If and when this person is convicted, we can then present the information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, and doesn't agree with general practice. We don't wait until a U.S. presidential nominee is elected to report on their campaign. We don't wait until the Olympics are over to report who is competing. The indictment is a fact of history, regardless of whether the case comes to trial and regardless of its outcome. The indictment is not a rumored event, but an official act by the state Attorney General. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it does make sense to be sensitive about adding negative information, and if there are simply charges, it changes the perspective quite a bit. These are all things that have to be considered when using discretion. It's not ok to simply say, "it happened, so it should be there", without being thoughtful to the context. This is a general statement, not a specific one to this article. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For that reason, we ensure that we source everything well, and we encourage the addition of relevant points of view on the other side. There's a significant difference between providing a balanced view of the controversy and hiding all mention of the controversy at all — especially in such a case, which I'd guess is the only reason a ton of people (including me) have even heard of him in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed all references to the charges against the subject. I stumbled upon this article and noted the following in apparent violation of WP BLP policy of "Do No Harm". I think this may be a very serious matter based on the following observations:

• In spite of the fact that the subject had a very long career in public service (20 years), this article did not come into existance until the very day on which the charges were published in a newspaper -- within hours.

• The first version of the article did not say anything of substance about the person except that he was a PA Democrat and that he was up on corruption charges.

• The article failed to mention the highly notable, easily sourceable and balancing POV that the charges are alleged to be politically motivated. This is a gross omission in a BLP. The identification of the target as a Democrat combined with the failure to identify the prosecutor as a Republican gives the article a very bad slant.

• Whether intentional or not, the article had the effect of serving a single purpose, that of using Wikipedia to promulgate and amplify the news of the day around the fact that the subject is a politicial figure in the Democratic party accused of criminal conduct. The effect of Wikipedia as a "megawatt bullhorn" to announce the news, in this context "does harm". This kind of "harm" is very serious business. Presumably the subject person will have a trial, or will plead. In either case, this "effect" (intended or unintended, of Wikipedia serving as the prosecutors "bullhorn") could prejudice jurors and/or weaken the subject person's negotiating position.

• The article has the clear effect of serving (intentionally or unintentionally) the explicitly stated purpose of an organization (the GOP) in "getting the word out" on corruption among the opposition party, and the "single source" citations have the further effect of reinforcing a parallel editorial campaign of the "Beaver County Times", as seen in several examples here.

• The language used in the article's original version, (again, created on the very day that the news came out) contains nothing positive on Mr. LaGrotta, cites only a single source (the Beaver County Times), cites that source twice, and merely summarizes these two news reports. This gives the impression of an NPOV problem. Further inspection reveals every good reason to assume good faith on the part of the editor who created the article, but I am concerned about the harm to the subject that may be inflicted nonetheless.

To me, it looks like prima facie evidence that the effect (intended or not) is to advance a political agenda against Mr. LaGrotta and his political party, and in "spreading the news" via Wikipedia, this has (intended or not) the appearance of "political muckraking", and this presents a possible gross violation of Wikipedia policy on BLPs -- specifically the "Do No Harm" guidelines in BLP context.

So, IF this article came into existence for the sole purpose of promulgating negative information about someone, or if it had primarily that effect, THEN this article needs to be deleted immediately or modified to remove any potentially harmful material. Again, appearances may be (often times are) deceiving, but we need to be primarily concerned about the effect of the article in the context of "Do No Harm", especially in the case of a BLP). I am no lawyer, but I've seen (in a professional context) some legal ramifications in this area and I think Wikipedia might be out on a limb here. Wikipedia's problems here are (a) rigorous enforcement of the policies around BLP's, (b) vigilance around the "politicization" (intentional or not) of Wikipedia, and (c) rigorous enforcement of the specific policy of "Do No Harm" in the BLP context.

Let's err on the side of caution.

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In my view, User:Wndl42 is misinterpreting the "do not harm" principle of WP:BLP. It doesn't mean "Never report any harmful information on a living person", it means "When there is doubt as to whether information should be included, the default position is the one that does not cause harm to the subject." The subject is a public official who has been arraigned on serious charges. Reporting that and citing it with the large number of available sources does not run afoul of WP:BLP (that said, I won't restore the information until we have a consensus). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is clearly a doubt about whether the information should be included. I feel it's undue weight, and others agree. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=175665029 --Jkp212 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The information on the indictment must be returned. You removed this information in spite of the overwhemling consensus on the Afd page. You are misinterpreting Do No Harm. All of this is in the news! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 January 2008

I'd like to note that I've left a note on the WP:Pennsylvania talk page, asking for someone to expand the article's coverage of him in materials unrelated to the current controversy. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that --Jkp212 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The information was well-sourced and clearly relevant to his political career. His political career is the reason we have an article on him. Friday (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the argument about including this information appears not to question whether this stuff really happened, the big question is whether it's doing harm. How is it harmful to him to have a short note that he was charged with felonies, when anyone can easily find out far more about him anywhere? It was never half of the article until others, holding that NPOV required statements against the indictment (which opinion I'm not questioning), added significant amounts of text. If you think NPOV requires that text, don't delete the entire section because it's too large. Unless you think that two properly-sourced sentences about a well-publicised case can hurt him, don't support their removal — and it's going to be a strange day indeed when sourced statements in his favor can hurt him. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those who feel that it is appropriate to back mention of the indictment in the article. However, since they are allegations, not convictions, it is to my way of thinking less important that the information be restored now. I guess I am saying that, while I personally would include it, I don't think that it's important enough to try to add it without consensus here. I also am given pause by the fact that the indictment statements very quickly attracted further edits about a pending civil suit before being reverted - something that has far less relevance or encyclopedic value.

Since a number of editors are concerned about undue weight, it seems clear that the next step is to expand the article with additional information, as I gather is being done. I propose to wait to see how that progresses. Finally, I would note that the fact of the subject's indictment still is listed (and I think properly so) at 2006 Pennsylvania General Assembly bonus controversy. Xymmax (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. LaGrotta has been indicted by the Attorney General. This is a fact [[1]] I am not sure why this is causing a big deal to state that the AG indicted him. --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look below — he may not have been indicted, just charged under a different procedure. The Post-Gazette source doesn't specifically say that. Nyttend (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT concerns and expanded article

Given the excellent work done by a couple of editors in expanding the article, how do the editors who favoured the material's removal now feel about the re-insertion of a brief summary? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done my part to expand the article a bit. There is a lot of information out there about this guy. If you would like to help the expansion, here are some good sources that I have been unable to incorporate into the article yet: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So if I have it right-a prominent politician is indicted and editors want that fact censored from the article! Wikipedia is starting to look like Alice in Wonderland. One rule for Democratic political figures; one rule for everyone else. This is as bad as the pedophilia cover-up on the Peter Yarrow article. John celona (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, with today's additions, the article is now 150% of the size that it was before the section on the controversy was deleted, and almost 350% of the size when the section was deleted. Is there any real claim that restoration of this section, which will increase the size of the article by about 33% — more than half of which is a set of attacks upon Corbett — risks BLP problems? Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but let's give User:Wndl42, User:Jkp12, and User:Jossi the chance to respond before restoring. Hopefully the great work done by User:Mareino and User:RedShiftPA has nipped this in the bud. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to do, to get their responses. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's cool with me. Hopefully, the article can be expanded further. I also hope the inclusion is balanced, as it was earlier today. Thanks for expanding the piece. By the way, in the box it states that he's a republican. Isn't that inaccurate? --Jkp212 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice expansion of the article guys. I personally think that the two sentence mention of the indictment would be fine now, but then I wasn't opposed to it earlier either. I hope the others will check back and add their input. Xymmax (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the stuff about the scandal should go back in soon (maybe a day or two) unless someone comes up with a valid reason not to. Friday (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It should never have been taken out. Make sure you put the verifiable links to any information posted. The idea that criminal charges brough against a public figure and reported in mainsteam media should be censored on "Weight" concerns is; to put it charitabaly, absurd. John celona (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of us agree with you, John. We're looking to hear what the editors who don't think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Projects

I added this article to some wikiprojects, including the Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh (since Ellwood City is right outside of Pittsburgh). I classified the article as "start class" and "mid importance." --RedShiftPA (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actual proceedings

Now that we have the section re-inserted, it would be good to have another thing: are there any updates on this case? I've been in western Ohio for a month, and naturally I don't hear much of anything about LaGrotta out here. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the latest actual news I can find:

• Also last week, former Democratic Rep. Frank LaGrotta appeared in Dauphin County Court on Thursday to plead not guilty to two counts of felony conflict-of-interest charges. Prosecutors say that the former Lawrence County lawmaker put two relatives on his legislative office's payroll but that there is no evidence they did work. LaGrotta is the first to be charged in Corbett's probe.

"Storm consumes Democrats", CHARLES THOMPSON AND JAN MURPHY. The Sunday Patriot - News. Harrisburg, Pa.: Dec 23, 2007. pg. A.1

The case has been mentioned in other news stories, but just recounting previous events. If he entered his plea in mid-December it could be Spring before the trial starts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the not guilty plea earlier today. He's also in the news for some sort of civil suit being filed against him, but I believe the sentiment was that that shouldn't be mentioned until such time as a judgment comes down against him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with adding the civil suit, since 1) it was on the news, so it is probably noteworthy and 2) it is factual. We just can't say that "LaGrotta did "X" but we can say "LaGrotta was sued by Mr. Y for "X". Again, WP:Undue weight and WP: Do no harm do not apply to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedShiftPA (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it was in the news doesn't mean that it should be mentioned in an encyclopedic biography. It's not relevant to his notability, whereas the indictment has a much easier claim of being connected to his notability as a politician. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with including civil suits inbiographies is that they are easy to file and may be groundless. Some prominent individuals may be the subject of dozens of suits related to the issues like their hiring practices or dealings with contractors. In many instances those are dismissed or settled for undisclosed sums. However that doesn't mean that all civil suits should be ignored. The civil suit against OJ Simpson claiming wrongful death was an important event in his life from the moment it was filed, and it would have been a bad editorial decision to omit any mention untl the case was concluded. In this instance, the civil suit is connected to actions the subject took while in an official capacaity, but which went beyond his normal responsibilities or authority. So the suit appears directly connected to his notability as a legislator. The case has also been widely reported, so it's not like a minor news item. Further a court has ruled that the case may go forward, indicating it isn't a frivolous suit. So it's a legitimate case, it is relevant to his notability, and it's widely reported. Those all seem like reasons to include at least a brief mention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--RedShiftPA (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me say - as an editor who's in favor of mentioning the criminal charges - that I really do not agree that the civil allegations belong in the article. First, a crime, if committed, is against society as a whole - in this the state of Pennsylvania - which is why there are public prosecutors to handle them. A civil charge is merely a dispute between a couple of people or organizations. The standard of proof in a civil case is much less than in a criminal case - they simply use a "more likely than not" standard. Furthermore, it is my understanding that a judge's ruling that a civil case can go forward does not mean that the case isn't frivolous - I think that it simply means that the acts alleged, if proved, would be enough to result in some sort of recovery or favorable judgment. If the allegations are proven, and the matter is relevant, then I think you have a much stronger argument for inclusion. Prior to that point all you really have is more of a news issue. There are exceptions of course, such as the OJ situation mentioned above. Another might be some of the civil litigation surrounding allegation of sexual abuse by members of certain religious orders. In general, however, I see much less encyclopedic value in reporting the blow by blow of private dispute that by definition has little public interest. Xymmax (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the suit has been mentioned in a verifiable source it should be in the article. If it is later dismissed that should also be in the article. John celona (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(removing indent) Like Xymmax, I'm much less favourable toward the civil case: not because it's unverifiable or because it's making the article unbalanced, but because I don't see it as that important. If nothing else, imagine how many suits must be filed against elected officials — I have no sources, but I'd guess that there are tons of suits always being filed against elected officials for everything imaginable. For example, a 9-11 conspiracy theorist has filed a lawsuit under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against President Bush, but that's really not significant enough to merit mention in his article. I suppose those such as Celona will see me as hypocritical, but I don't think this is really big enough to mention unless he loses — it's not a Clinton v. Jones. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including the civil suit but it isn't a sticking point. If folks prefer to wait until the suit is either resolved or makes more headlines then that's fine with me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

More info about the Subject himself would be nice but yes include the lawsuit if you like. I was going to vote to keep the article but I was too late.Albion moonlight (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject here is a small town (Ellwood City, PA) state legislator. He never distinguished himself in any real fashion, never was the point man for any specific issue or legislation, never ran for any higher office. Which is fine--there are about 175 state representatives in PA that fit that description. But, the majority of his notability comes from his entanglement with the law, (and how it will impact the 2008 races, and how he has turned into an informant for the AG, and how it almost took down the majority leader). There's no rule of "Find something nice to say for every bad thing you have to say." We need to give a full accounting of the facts.--RedShiftPA (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing: his notability does not come from the recent political controversies; it comes from his being a state legislator. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You think a bio article may only have 1 source of notability? Sure he's notable because he's a legislator, and so is this guy: [David Hickernell]]. Without his legal troubles. LaGrotta's bio would only need to be 3 lines long. It is his legal troubles that give him extra super duper notability. --RedShiftPA (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LaGrotta History

I'm new here and don't want to attempt to edit the article for fear of messing up the code. There are several points of fact -- some small, some large -- that should be corrected.

The article states that U.S. Rep. Joseph Kolter, who was defeated in the 1992 Democratic Primary, was "embroiled in the Congressional Post Office Scandal." That's slightly misleading. Kolter was being looked at by prosecutors because of his closeness to several figures connected with that scandal (he later pleaded guilty to stealing from his office stationery account, not from the Post Office). But Kolter's problem with the 1992 primary was that he had been reported making outrageous statements, including one in which he called himself "a political whore" and proposed to campaign by visiting funerals homes where he would "shed a little tear, sign my name and take off." That cynical statement, as well as a few ethnically charged remarks, was reported by The Pittsburgh Press and it served as the catalyst for Kolter's ouster. The federal investigation of Kolter was not known until months after he'd lost renomination.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_10_20/ai_60087713/pg_1 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4102485.html

The LaGrotta article refers to an "Indictment." Pennsylvania grand juries do not return indictments. They return "Presentments." This isn't a matter of semantics. An indictment constitutes the legal charges. A presentment merely is findings of facts with recommendations to charge, or not to charge, a person. The charges in the LaGrotta case were brought by the state attorney general, who could also have declined to follow the grand jury's recommendation. In the case of an indictment, a prosecutor has no choice because the grand jury is the accusing agency. The reason Pennsylvania uses grand juries in some -- not all -- instances is that it is the only way under Pennsylvania law for law enforcement to use subpoenas and compel testimony.

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=207

It is a little surprising that the Wikipedia entry makes no mention of the fact that LaGrotta has become an important figure in the overall investigation into a scandal involving the use of state employees and state payroll bonuses, to do political work in the 2006 elections. The story broke in October of last year.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07280/823526-85.stm

The references to the Philadelphia Daily News are disingenous. The Daily News has not suggested partisanship by Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett. Two contributors did. The first is Ben Waxman, a talented writer who also happens to be active with the Young Democrats -- hardly a disinterested analyst. The second, Mark Cohen, is a Democratic member of the state House and a member of leadership. That hardly seems the basis for judging partisanship on the part of Corbett who has also publicly stated that the Republicans are also under investigation in the matter of the payroll bonuses and use of state resources for politics.

Poleglass (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to address these issues (thanks for bringing them to our attention), but I confess that I don't see any mention of an indictment in the article. Could you clarify? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you provide a citation that Coren is a Democratic state representative? A quick Google search couldn't locate anything. As for Waxman, I've included his name so that it no longer appears that the paper's editorial board was behind the comments. As for him being a young Democrat, I think including this fact (even if cited) would violate WP:SYNTH. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The sole mention of an indictment was the header for section 3, which (without noting it here) I changed to "Criminal charges" after reading Poleglass' comments. Nyttend (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Cohen

Here's a link to show you Mark Cohen's political bona fides.

http://www.pahouse.com/cohen/bio.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.180.192 (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you look at that; he even has a pretty extensive Wikipedia article, especially for a state legislator. Apparently I don't know how to use Google. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just that you misspelled his name :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Stupid stupid STUPID!

In unrelated news, I'm really excited about the news that Leonard Coren will be touring this spring. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Guilty Plea

LaGrotta entered a guilty plea today. Anyone want to take NPOV/BLP/RS/OR issue with this? Didn't think so.--RedShiftPA (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What? We're spreading the word that he says he did something...perhaps it's somewhat of an unreliable source, since all this depends on a statement he himself made, and BLP says we really can't depend on statements made by the subject!  :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some editors seemed determined to scrub this article of any references to his indictment: reverts, a failed AfD, an alert at BLP.

Now that he has pleaded guilty, I was half expecting someone to argue against the guilty plea should not be included based on some interpretation of wikipedia rules. I guess my exasperated tone came through on that post and obscured the point. Will be more clear next time.--RedShiftPA (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RedShiftPA is constructing a Straw Man. The discussion was (and IS) over whether this article was originally created in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, specifically read POINT FIVE Whether or not the creation of the article was done by a tendentious editor to support a political agenda is a secondary matter. Now, WP:NOT#NEWS is not a "guideline", it is an OFFICIAL POLICY, and if that POLICY is violated in the context of WP:BLP, Wikipedia can be (and has been) sued. See also WP:HARM#TEST.

Since there has not been even one single BLP Admin willing to straight up answer the straight up question I actually asked, (which is frickin' WP:Wiki-amazing to me}, and as not one person or admin has yet commented on the POLICY, here is chapter and verse of the POLICY, "for the record"...

• "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews."

Now, have I made my question clear? Have I sufficiently explained the policy basis for my question? It is a simple question that requires a very simple, yes or no answer FROM A BLP ADMIN. I asked the question in the first place because it appeared to me that the article was in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS on the day of it's creation, Ok? Please, no more Straw Man mischaracterizations of my question here. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wndl42 - I think you might be confused about a few things here. I would like to clarify the following:

• Admins (such as myself) have no privileged position in adjudicating content issues; this includes BLP issues.
• User:Will Beback, who is both an admin and a frequenter of WP:BLPN (as am I, for that matter) has stated that, in his opinion, there are no real BLP issues with this article as currently created.
• According to WP:BIO, all state legislators are notable enough to have an article written about them.
• Regardless of the state of an article at creation, what matters is the current state of the article. Even if the article was, at the time of its creation, an uncited pack of malicious lies, that is no reason to delete (or blank) the current article.
• Motivation in creating an article is, generally speaking, irrelevant. What matters are Wikipedia's policies (including the ones you cite above).

Does this clarify things for you at all? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And by the way: none of us admins are assigned to anything. The only reason any admin is a BLP admin is because that admin wanted to work with BLP. I don't typically work with controversial topics (this page is quite unusual for me), and that's the only real reason that I don't work with BLP. And lastly, I must say that there cannot be any confusion about your position: you have explained it quite well, and I'm sure that we all understand you correctly. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion to Archive

Anyone opposed to archiving the talk page up to this point?

The BLP concerns have been addressed, and so the discussions are no longer current. They are also rather large, so they tend to clutter up the talkpage. This is standard wikipedia procedure, see here and here.--RedShiftPA (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. You or someone else please do it; I'm accustomed to archiving my own page, but I don't want to mess up something with an article talk page. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, the talk page is currently archived!--RedShiftPA (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)